bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

sponsorType

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

factSheets

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

copyrighted

customTimezone

liveContents

Wilson Leung

In the film Groundhog Day, Bill Murray's character is stuck in a time loop, forced to relive the same day again and again. It is only when he realises the error of his egocentric ways and develops compassion for mankind that he is able to break out of the loop and carry on with his life (alongside a newfound love).
Hong Kong people may be forgiven for thinking they are stuck in the same kind of time loop. In 2003, the government was proposing to enact national security legislation in order to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law. The push was spearheaded by Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, a rising star in the establishment. Another prominent proponent was chief executive Tung Chee-hwa. The rest of the story is well known: following a massive protest on July 1, the bill was shelved, Ip resigned, and Tung departed not long after.
Twelve years later, we hear noises again about national security legislation and Article 23. Tung, having apparently recovered from the leg pains that afflicted him at the time of his resignation, is again trotting out - or being trotted out - to remind Hongkongers of the importance and desirability of national security. Ip's political star is back in the ascendancy, and she, along with Antony Leung - another throwback to 2003 - are being touted as possible contenders for the city's top job. Will Hong Kong, like Murray's character, be able to break free and live happily ever after?
Both in 2003 and now, we are constantly reminded by the Article 23 cheering squad that Hong Kong has a constitutional obligation under the Basic Law to enact national security legislation. However, there are two essential points that are being ignored by these enthusiasts.
First, the Basic Law does not stipulate a time limit for the enactment of the legislation. This clearly means that it is left to Hong Kong to enact the legislation at an appropriate time of its own choosing. What constitutes an appropriate time depends on the political, social and economic conditions prevailing in the city.
Second, Hong Kong equally has a constitutional obligation to implement elections for the chief executive by universal suffrage. This obligation exists because of Article 45, read together with the National People's Congress Standing Committee's decision of August 31, that there is a need for selecting the chief executive through universal suffrage for 2017 and after.
With those two points in mind, it is difficult to see any reason for another attempt at implementing national security legislation - the previous bid having ended in fiasco - unless and until the universal suffrage issue has been resolved.
National security legislation is a sensitive topic. There is a thin - and easily abused - line between protecting the country and stifling dissent. Such legislation, if it is not carefully drafted, debated and scrutinised, can threaten fundamental rights and freedoms. There is a particular risk to the freedom of expression, the right to personal liberty, the right of assembly and the right of free association.
In consequence, it would be a fool's errand to attempt to introduce national security legislation when there is a profound lack of trust between the government and the residents of Hong Kong. It was this lack of trust that resulted in the implosion of Tung and Ip's foray in 2003. The same mistrust would torpedo any renewed efforts in the same direction - so long as the chief executive is chosen by a small-circle election and perceived as pandering to the interests of Beijing and the business elite. It is only by delivering on the promise of universal suffrage, and allowing elections that produce a leader who is freely chosen by the people of Hong Kong, that Beijing and the government can create the atmosphere of trust needed to enable the enactment of national security legislation. If the government is seen to be twisting the meaning of terms such as "universal suffrage" and "election", how far can they be trusted on words such as "treason", "sedition" and "state secrets"?
Contrary to what some Article 23 advocates have suggested, the Occupy protests did nothing to show there is an urgent need for national security legislation. The large-scale protests were widely lauded in the international media for being remarkably peaceful, civilised and polite. Also, the protest leaders emphasised they were not trying to overturn the nation's system but simply asking for real universal suffrage within Hong Kong.
Despite repeated claims by Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, there is still no evidence to prove the protests were instigated by "external forces" determined to subvert the central government or cause Hong Kong to secede from the People's Republic. These kind of bald assertions do little to reassure the populace that national security legislation would not be used to target opponents of the government.
Those who are pining for national security legislation would be better off calling on Beijing and the government to fulfil their promise of universal suffrage.
Wilson Leung is a barrister and convenor of the Progressive Lawyers Group 


Until society trusts the authorities, there can be no national security legislation in Hong Kong

There is a thin, easily abused, line between protecting the nation and stifling dissent.

Opinion

Comment

Wilson Leung says authorities need to regain the public's confidence before seeking to enact national security laws, and the best way to do that would be to fulfil their promise of universal suffrage
